About the mass destruction of populations 69

Moral clarity is needed on the question of whether the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad can be allowed to get away with using gas against the Syrian people in the civil war over which he presides year after year.

The answer is NO. He cannot be allowed to.

Gas was delivered on to the Syrian town of Douma from the air. No rebel faction has aircraft. It could only have been delivered by Assad, or his Russian allies at his behest.

There is no defense against chemical and biological weapons. They can be used against large numbers of civilians. That is why they are called “weapons of mass destruction”.

So yes, it is worse to kill off whole populations with gas or anthrax than to engage an army with conventional weapons.

If Assad or anyone else in a position to develop and deliver mass-murdering gas gets away with doing it, others will do it too, such as the mullahs of Iran, the despot of North Korea.

And if gas is re-introduced as a weapon of war, no one anywhere will be out of its reach.

Bad actors hesitate to use biological weapons – the spreading of diseases, such as anthrax – because the stuff can kill the attackers as easily as the attacked. Disease is wholly impartial and no respecter of persons. But gas, dropped from the air as it was over Douma, kills only those below, not those who drop it or send it. It is the cheapest weapon of mass destruction an immoral government with an air force can use.

Elliot Friedland writes at the Clarion Project:

[President] Trump was on the phone with the leaders of France and Britain, the only two other Western powers with serious force projection capabilities, although their militaries pale in comparison to that of the United States. …

The question is whether the United States and her allies will wage war on Syria.

Many pundits and politicians from both sides of the aisle feel the question has already been decided. Of course the President should act in the face of such immorality. America has a responsibility to lead, to not let tyrants commit atrocities with impunity. Despite the partisan rancor that normally characterizes Washington, there is remarkable unity around the idea that Trump ought to authorize at least some military action in Syria.

There are many good reasons to support such a position. Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro forcefully argued the case against Assad on Fox News, highlighting the vital importance of maintaining deterrence against chemical weapons attacks.

But opposition to the war is bringing a strange medley of personalities from across the political spectrum together.

Tucker Carlson, one of the most watched right-of-center talk show hosts on American television, delivered a blistering rebuke of the pro-war crowd on his show. He said that even if Assad did order a chemical weapons attack that killed children (which Carlson acknowledges he is perfectly capable of doing), to remove him would only bring further chaos at the expense of American lives and billions more dollars.

In this opinion, he is joined by none other than Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour party, who called for restraint and a multilateral solution brought by the United Nations.

The iniquitous United Nations, that does much harm and no good! (It must be abolished.)

Corbyn has links to Islamist figures, has called Hamas and Hezbollah his “friends” and is embroiled in an on-going anti-Semitism scandal. In the UK, Corbyn’s position was supported by none other than Nick Griffin, former leader of the far-right British National Party. Griffin tweeted that he would vote Labour and support Corbyn if he stopped U.S. airstrikes in Syria.

Left-wing journalist and self-described “anarcho-psychonaut” Caitlin Johnstone wrote in Medium “We All Need to Unite Against War in Syria Regardless of Ideology.” She cites Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald, who got famous breaking Edward Snowden’s Wikileaks as also being against the war.

Patriarcha, an ultraconservative Christian Facebook page even shared her article, calling it “compulsory reading”, despite that page’s longstanding visceral hatred for anything emanating from the left.

The prospect of war is uniting people who normally couldn’t stand to even be in the same room without screaming at each other. The conventional partisan alignments are breaking down in the face of the ever-changing political reality.

Fortunately, the person who will decide what to do is not Tucker Carlson, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Nick Griffin, or Caitlin Johnstone, or Glenn Greenwald, or some “ultraconservative Christian” …

  • I’ve linked to this article in our weekly roundup to give some balance, most of us in Europe are at least questioning what the real motives are. It just seems all too much like the last time, many of us don’t believe Assad used chemical weapons at all.

    Personally I’m rather undecided on it but I’m leaning against the intervention on the whole. I fear we have been conned on the chemical weapons story. When you have a leader like Theresa May, and she’s saying “its in the national interest”, you have to think probably the opposite is true (especially after the last interventions were used as an excuse to allow Islam’s invasion of Europe to step up a gear).

    Nigel Farage is opposed:

    “Nigel Farage Slams Theresa May over Syria, Strikes ‘Not in National Interest’”
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/15/nigel-farage-slams-theresa-may-syria-strikes-national-interest/

    Weekly roundup:

    http://participator.online/articles/2018/04/other_items_that_caught_our_eye_this_week_we_14_april_20180415.php

    • liz

      Good points. One of the biggest problems with this situation is that no-one can really be trusted to have the correct information, or if they do, to be telling the truth about it. We’re learning, to our dismay, here in the U.S., that not even the FBI or the CIA can be trusted, at least not when their ranks are filled with leftists.

      • Well exactly, I am having to wonder as well – is Trump draining the swamp or is the swamp draining Trump? He’s doing the exact opposite of what he said he would do on this, as Mr. Farage has also pointed out.

        • I learnt from your latest round-up of news for The Participator that Theresa May seized the opportunity to launch the RAF strike while the MPs were “away”. I added, in my own article, “for the weekend”. Is that correct? Or is parliament prorogued? Or on holiday?

          • I think it was the Easter holidays they were referring to which should have ended today:

            https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

            • Thanks I’ll correct that.

              By the way, all witnesses – various and separate – declared that the gas was were dropped from aircraft.(Not drones.) Only Assad and the Russians have aircraft. No rebel group has them.

            • “all witnesses – various and separate” seems to include people who have starred in white helmets videos, hence my suspicions. A lot of people have raised doubts about footage of children in hospitals as well – medical equipment not set up properly for example (I don’t have the knowledge to know if they are right). As I say I haven’t spent a lot of time on this so maybe some of these witnesses are genuine, but I haven’t personally seen anything yet that made me think so. There seems to be a lot of propaganda flying about on both sides and I simply don’t know what to make of it all overall I’m afraid. I will share some of it if I find it.

            • The witnesses I heard about – from TV military commentators on Fox – were Douma civilians. I cannot of course vouch for the truth of the accounts. But the people who relayed the stories were people I would be inclined to trust.

            • By the way Amber Rudd says that the “White Helmets” do a great job apparently according to the Guardian:

              https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/06/amber-rudd-secret-billion-pound-conflict-stability-security-fund

              “They include groups such as the White Helmets in Syria, who do a great job.”

              This includes an admission that the UK govt. is funding them. We simply cannot trust the govt. therefore.

            • I have supposed, ever since the first Syrian gas incident and my first hearing about the White Helmets, that they must be a good bunch of people doing a good job, simply because the MSM and the Left generally pour abuse on them. (Though I regret having to imply even a modicum of approval of Muslim-protecting Amber Rudd!)

            • In the UK MSM the White Helmets are normally highly praised – the BBC article I linked to was an anomaly. The murdered Labour MP Jo Cox nominated them for a Nobel peace prize.

            • .. and here are the “White Helmets” “in action”:

              http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38066791

            • All photos of Arab conflict events that we ever see are posed. Hamas sets up poses for pictures for the (naive or conniving – usually conniving) Western press all day every day. The posing is only bad when it is meant to tell a lie, as is the case invariably with Hamas. In the case of the White Helmets – well, they really do bring first aid to the wounded, it seems.

            • Apologies for the deluge of links but if you find the time this might be worth considering (a “pro-Trump” source apparently):

              https://youtu.be/lSXwG-901yU

            • Well. that seems to be fairly conclusive. The attack was a propaganda lie.

              I am still glad that the sites connected with chemical and biological weapons production have been bombed.

              Many Syrians may indeed “love” Assad. I read recently that 24% of Venezuelans “love” Maduro. They are nonetheless dictators, and the people they rule over are not free and live in fear and want. Assad has been presiding over civil war for years. His regime is obviously not a good government. The Russians – thanks to Obama – have acquired a firm foothold in his country, right there on the Mediterranean sea. Bad! Iran has spread its influence there. Again, bad!

            • I’m inclined to believe that report but I’m still keeping an open mind on absolutely everything connected with this.

            • Thank you very much for the video, Chauncey. I will post it, with comment, and acknowledgment to you.

      • Jeanne

        But still…we do not know all the particulars known to any high-ranking officials of either nation involved in this conflict directly or indirectly and we certainly don’t know the absolute truth. We speculate based on our own opinions and research into what news is available. I guess ignorance used to be bliss, but now anyone aware is pulling out their hair with worry that something far bigger than our little lives is going on, which will affect us, our nations, our communities, our families and in general, our futures. We have learned to distrust.

    • Jeanne

      Chauncey, I keep asking, why this conflict? That it is a proxy war between the US and Russia cannot be doubted. Who stands to benefit from continued intervention, besides, of course, those who are targeted by WMD? It seems that the strike was unified and very surgical and successful, at least that is what we are being told. Isn’t there always something else going on when the US and Russia are on different sides, but acting as if they both want an end to the atrocities?

      I am glad the WMDs are gone, if they are, but the war continues and the innocents will continue to be slaughtered, buildings destroyed, life disrupted and most likely Assad will win in the end. And..then what?
      I was reading in Nat. Review about RFE/RL and the Middle East version and thinking to look up that site to find out more.

      • I tend to agree with you that Assad will still be there at the end of it all. I suspect the West wants to thwart Russian and Iranian ambitions in the region, but I’m really not sure if it will be able to since the withdrawal of the troops and the collapse of Iraq. When I say “not able to” I mean without actually declaring war on Russia.

        Russia is apparently threatening counter measures but I can’t begin to think what those measures will be, again without a direct declaration of war with the West. All in all I am inclined to think this is all a little bit theatrical since I don’t really believe the chemical weapons pretext.

        I’m just giving my own vague impression from a great distance here, I’m not claiming to have a great insight, in fact I haven’t studied any of it very closely. My own priority is to get someone into no.10 who understands the Islamic threat.

    • Yes, I read your weekly round-up early this morning. Full of interest. I made use of the info that Theresa May seized a moment when the MPs were “away”. Away where? I said in my article “for the weekend”? Is that correct? http://theatheistconservative.com/2018/04/16/missile-strikes-on-syria-punishment-prevention-and-warning/

  • Jeanne

    I, for one, am glad that there are people asking questions about what is going on. Tucker Carlson, Paul Joseph Watson, whomever writes about both sides in newspapers or sites, such as The American Thinker.

    Further, I make absolutely no apologies for my questions and concerns. I intend to be rational and I want my elected officials to be rational too, for-gods-sake. And…I am concerned that they are not.

  • I have no qualms with the morality of retaliation and I’m sympathetic with much of what has been said here. I do worry about the prudence of our retaliating. There is an assumption that we must police the world and punish those violating international standards of war.

    Unfortunately, our troops are hamstrung by other nations who want to use International standards to hobble us. While we don’t want to use chemical weapons, by defending international law we are defending the right, in general, of others to oversee our military. Do we want to cede more of our sovereignty to global institutions?

    Assad is an Iranian proxy as North Korea is China’s proxy. We either focus on the root cause or continued to be bled dry trying by dealing with proxies.

    • Don L

      Allah’s greetings upon you.

      Da, Da … Achmed, it’s Yuri.

      Yes, Yuri. allah be with you.

      Da, Da …They’ve let us get away with the using the chemical weapons.

      Yes, allah is good.

      Da, Da … we will be shipping the theater nuclear devices this week. Do you have the target set?

      Their carrier forces are re-entering the Gulf … the infidels will be taught a lesson …allah be with you.

      Da, Da. I will let Vlad know.
      ______

      Iran must be denied Nukes at all costs …YES!

    • Jeanne

      I agree, but I think Assad and Iran are both Russian proxies.

      If the root cause is Islamists groups, such as ISIS, and if Assad is currently fighting to destroy ISIS, and news was that he was succeeding. And…Trump wants to destroy ISIS. Why would Assad risk using gas on a nearly defeated rebel/ISIS territory, thereby inviting international scorn and retaliation from Trump?

      Who gains from using the gas? Could it be the same group that gains from another blow to Assad?

      • But how could any group other than the Syrian government (Assad), or the Russians, drop the deadly gas from the air? None of the rebel groups have aircraft. The one thing nobody in Washington, D.C., or London, or Paris, is disputing is that the gas was dropped over Douma.

        • Jeanne

          It is true that no officials in DC, London or Paris are disputing that people were gassed and contend that a helicopter was used, while Russian and Syrian officials are saying that it was a staged attack by the UK so that there would be an excuse to retaliate. France says it has proof it was a helicopter dropping and Russia says it has proof it was all staged.

          Is it too much to make sure? There are also consequences for actions of retaliation and if it is proved that the attack was staged, the good guys will have blundered. What has it been, five days?

          I don’t know what is the truth. Should Congress entertain this idea of more US involvement that might backfire? Israel is the nation that has the most to lose if Assad/Iran are successful in this war is what I have read. Trump supports Israel, but to what extent? Assad is fighting against ISIS in his country. Trump hates ISIS.

          Again, I have to wonder, why this conflict? Why not Myanmar, Sudan or another horrible war in Africa… and what is Venezuela doing?

          A short article from The American Thinker on both sides is found here:

          https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/04/should_we_bomb_syria.html

          • liz

            Good questions. It’s almost laughable the way these countries are pointing fingers at each other. A confusing mess.

  • Jeanne

    Going to add this youtube site by Paul Joseph Watson. I admit that I do not know all the up to the minute information about this war, but I do remember the past info that he brings up and I did read of Assad’s claim of near victory over the “rebels” and of the war winding down and ISIS being greatly diminished.

    The Truth About the Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

    I don’t know if this posted as a hyperlink, but it can be searched and found.

    • Thanks, Jeanne, but it seems the link didn’t get posted.

    • Don L

      A Ron and Rand Paul Libertarian – lay down and don’t defend yourself; the iranians are rational and its OK for them to have nukes. Geez, he’s your source?

      • Jeanne

        What the hell are you talking about? There is nothing from this that resembles that. This guy is being censored by YouTube for his reasonings on Islamists and what they are doing to Western Civilization, just as Pat Condel is.

        And..no, his blog is not, by far, my only source. His just happened to be the next place I went, which made me consider other viewpoints and remember the Syrian news from the past year. Trump has been saying contradictory things about Assad, the civl war, and our involvement.

        I have since been reading various accounts of the history of the Syrian Civil War.

  • Jeanne

    If we go to war, will we accept nothing less than victory? Will our armed forces and those of our allies go in to complete the mission and be allowed to win? I understand why anyone in any allied nation might not be so eager to commit blood, time and treasure only to end up with it all wasted…again.

    Maybe if that is a guarantee, more people everywhere might support it and then such action might become contagious and we would see a halt to the idiocy of allowing the West to become Islamified….because Islam is a dangerous religion that threatens peace everywhere. I mean this is actually a religious war pretending to be something else, correct?

    I agree that WMD cannot be allowed, but women, the elderly and children…the innocents of war… are being slaughtered through conventional means everyday. Gas is just another way that they become casualties of war and most of those wars are driven by religious hatred and many involve Islamists.

    So…after this, do we stop with force all the other fanatics that wage war by slaughtering the innocents? And…are the other nations with us?

    Does such thinking make me a “pacifist pansie” or a realist?

    Another question; why this war of all the ones in progress?

    • liz

      Yes, I agree that we must put “a halt to the idiocy of allowing the West to become Islamified”. If that involves war then so be it.
      The galling thing about it is that none of it would even be happening if it weren’t for the Left. All of the tragedy caused by Islamic terrorism and invasion of the West should be laid on their doorstep.

    • I don’t think anyone’s talking about an invasion of Syria by US ground troops, Jeanne. It will be done with missiles. Attacks from the air and sea. I’d like Assad’s palaces to be bombed flat. And also the port taken over by Russia – which has ached for a port in the Med since whoknowswhen. I agree with you that this time it must be done for victory. And the US should get out of Afghanistan. The longest US war? No end in sight. No purpose to be served.

      • Jeanne

        And…do you think that flattening Assad’s palaces would not lead to a more public Russian involvement, thus inviting a broadening of the war? Missiles are great, but wars are won with ground troops. Will there be collateral damage to innocents if we bomb such that Assad has no choice but to halt all continuance of his war, which he wants to win? To bomb otherwise is just going to piss him and Putin off. How do we know that if Russia comes out strongly against the bombings that our allies, who are dependent upon Russia and fearful of them will stand with us? Too much to consider to rush in on this, especially since it has not been proven that Assad dropped the barrel bomb. The information in this video makes me question all this.

        • With luck a bombing of his palace will kill him. The quickest way to end the whole horror show in Syria is to kill Assad. Broaden the war? Iran is planning war against the US anyway. Iran needs to be defeated as soon as possible too. Russia does not want war with the US.

    • Don L

      What the crap. Do you think these bastards are doing these things to stay in a little enclave and leave us alone? Geez, are they or are they not our enemies? I don’t want a war … I want them gone on the first strike! Yes, Jeanne, sorry. It makes you a pacifist pansie. By the time you realize something ought be done, the blade will be at your throat, or the borscht being poured down it (a Russian water board technique).

      Chamberlain … how many times do we have to go through the same lesson? What is the cost if we don’t nail them. They get stronger and more daring and more evil. Time after time after time.

      • Jeanne

        Which bastards are you talking about? ISIS? Assad? The Rebels? The Russians? I agree on ISIS, but those in Syria are what Assad is fighting against as part of the Rebel forces, isn’t that right? Putin wants the Soviet Union back as it was and he wants to be one of the powers of the world, but I am not sure that he will sic Russian troops and bombs on the US, despite his braggadocio.

        A short bombing strike will not end this war in Syria. A full fledged assault with our Allies will, but what does that bring? Possible Russian involvement that isn’t so proxy? If there are questions, then we must make sure and if we are sure, then we should guarantee to our troops and to our allies’ troops that we will allow them to do what they are trained to do and go in planning to fight to victory over Assad.

        Then…help the Rebel forces rebuild Syria to their liking as an Islamic state under a Theocracy? That has always been the danger and is one reason the Assad dynasty has been promoted, isn’t it?

        And..when I say “we” I mean our troops, who are mostly our children and grandchildren, not me and not you or Liz or Jillian. The Middle East “confliction” is a quagmire that sucks down life and health and time and money and never seems to get resolved. I want the US and our allies to be very sure of what a joint bombing might get them into. I want all to be very sure that Assad did this. And then I want all to be together when they finish it.

        And again, I ask; why this war of all in progress in which innocents are used and slaughtered and tortured for mostly religious reasons?

        If the big powers had kept out of it from the beginning, it would have been over and the relative peace that is the Middle East would have returned to Syria and maybe the whole “refugee” mess wouldn’t have happened. Gas or no gas, war gets communities destroyed and innocents slaughtered and it is why wars end finally with one side victorious and the other side mostly dead or fled or settled to their fate as a conquered people.

        The West has for decades been interfering with the process of this entire area in its own governing and advancement and the West was wrong to do so. They have been ripe for proxy power-plays for most of that time, as well. When does it stop?

        • All the bastards. There is no good side in Syria (except the US and any stray bits of military presence from Europe that might visit the theater of war now and then to help the US, mostly in a gestural manner, except for the British whose snipers have done amazing things). You make important points. But Assad must go. The civil war must stop. No Western armies need go into Syria. No repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan is tolerable. I expect action by special forces, air strikes – an end to “strategic patience” which is an Obama euphemism for doing nothing. Of course I could be wrong. I await a decision by the commander-in-chief, and Mattis and Bolton, to know if my expectations are right.

          • Don L

            Hand salute!

          • liz

            Yes, one thing that Bush may have done right was (Desert Storm?) in Iraq. Then Obama came along and withdrew our troops and let the whole thing collapse, leaving a vacuum for ISIS to enter.
            Maybe Trump should do something similar in Syria, without leaving it to collapse later.

            • President Trump would handle an invasion and its aftermath better than Bush for sure. But I don’t think he wants to commit the US military to that sort of engagement. We’ll see.

            • Don L

              You know – getting it out anyway:

              His comment was, paraphrasing – we leave and the others will take over: Saudi, Jordan and the other gulf states (he just fixed the Quatar region problem) – it’s what he’s been working on since election. It isn’t JUST USA in this. If, however, the bastards (all of them) misbehave and heavy lifting is required, we’ll lend THEM a hand. Makes sense to me. They take care of their own neighborhood.

              No other of our leaders ever exhibited this common sense insight or capability of leading and gathering a real coalition.

          • Jeanne

            Okay, all the bastards; Sunni, Shia, Suffi, ISIS, Russians. Right, the civil war must stop. Why? There are civil wars going on in other parts of the world with atrocities done to innocents and we are allowing that collateral damage…because why? What happens after Assad is dead? Which faction takes over? Seems to me as if all ends are no-win situations for some people, who have been trying to survive. Do we “nation-build” or try the Iraq thing again to promote a form of democracy in a nation of people who hate each other and have no clue?

            I guess we are in it anyway and my reservations and those of others make little difference. I hope we have allies and I hope all goes forward with some good outcome that is well planned.

            • Yes, likely Assad’s successor will be as bad as Assad. If he starts mass-murdering he too must be eliminated. Same with the next mass-murderer. However many times.

        • Don L

          So, you were writing Obama’s foreign poopicy?

          Instead of feelings and emotions why not get the book I recommended and learn history. You seem determined to repeat all the mistakes.

          Thomas Sowell – “Intellectuals and Society”

          Your notions are the same that gave us WWII, the loss in Viet Nam and every off the reservation tyrant, dictator, mullah, etc now waging wars across the mid-east, eastern Europe and the south china seas.

          DO NOTHING … Obamaesque.

          Sad. Enough, I’m done.

          • Jeanne

            Don, these are not “feelings and emotions” that I am making my points upon. I am making my points on history, both from decades ago and recent. The West screwed up big time for selfish reasons and the Middle East today, along with Europe’s invasion of Islamists, is the price the West is paying.

            I am sorry that you cannot bring yourself to consider this conflict in another way and you must claim my points are from my being a pacifist pansie, who is ignorant of Sunni-Shia conflict and the history of the area and the failure of Chamberlain during WWII, plus I suppose the failure of good nations to stop atrocities of the likes of Hitler.

            I have always wanted to “nuke the place from outer space just to be sure.” But…that is a lot of innocent lives lost to answer for the gross mistakes of Western powers. And…it is the destruction of innocents using WMDs that has us riled, right?

            • Don L

              Long before there was a US of A, the slamist doctrine of kill the infidel was in place. You have drunk the cool aid. And, selfish means concern for one’s self. A good thing. Too much christian cool aid too? Perhaps you mean self-serving. The left and theists never ever want you to care about yourself …the reward is after you die. That too is in islam before we in the west did a damned thing. You read crap history. Again read my recommendation – I know the nonsense history you’re currently spouting. Probably think Lincoln freed the slaves and saved the union too?

              Kirsi Ali: “There are only muslims doing their duty to kill infidels and muslims not yet doing their duty.”

              Now I’m done. We’ll agree on another topic … not this one. Still love ya!

            • Jeanne

              I am failing utterly to make my reasoning clear and for that I apologize. Don, I don’t know what I have written that causes your opinion of my reasoning. I want ISIS and any other Islamist dead. I want Putin afraid of the USA. I want our allies to agree that Assad did indeed use gas again and then I want them and us to make a very informed plan to deal with him and I want the civil war in Syria to wind down, and for the people to end up with a system of governing that is not an Islamist-run theocracy. I would like that for other places in the world that are stuck in a never-ending war that is mostly over religious hatred. I do not want any of us to become involved in a quagmire of Middle Eastern idiocy for years and years, while our young men and women are maimed and killed and treasures and time are wasted upon something that never ends and never changes.

              What Kool-aid? What Christian Kool-aid? What are you talking about my not caring about myself? And as for history, surely you know of the Sykes-Picot Agreement from WWI? And I know about the history of Mohammedism, which is what we used to call this distortion of humanity and is what I often call it still…because it is the worship of that deranged and savage megalomaniac, who left detailed instructions on how to go about “reverting” the infidel through stealth, lies and slaughter.

              So far, most of what I have read online and in newspapers has been along the lines of my reasoning; that who used the gas is uncertain, that Putin’s response is uncertain and that a limited missile strike would not stop Assad’s continued plan to win this war…but could acerbate relations all around and create a new instability to the area.

              I don’t know, I keep rereading my posts and I can figure out how you think you have me figured out from what I wrote.

            • liz

              Jean, I understand your very valid points. I don’t claim to have this “quagmire of middle eastern idiocy” figured out either.
              It seems anything we do is “damned if you do, damned if you dont”.

      • liz

        Ironically, I just noticed an article at the Mises website that agrees with Tucker Carlsons view.

        • Don L

          I’m embroiled in a battle with the Institute now over their filure, for years, to promote Austrian economics in favor of self-aggrandizing Libertarian ideology. They have no business in the discussion. They have lost the reason gthey are the MISES Instute. Econ seems to be a 3rd chair. They are all Ron/Rand Paul iran is OK libs.

          • That’s how I see the Mises Institute too.

            • Don L

              Here’s the latest condennsed and chopped: The article Liz was speakinhg of.

              Don L • 8 hours ago
              It’s a shame you libertarian buffoons have ruined Austrian econ. Economics is not an ideology! So, you put the Pauls out to show the stupidity: Iranians are rational and they won’t use nukes. They are like the Soviets.

              Hey Bevis, or is it Butthead, are you giving up your belief in a make believe god and the son of mystical rape? Well, the iranians aren’t giving up theirs and their brand of apocalyptic islamic-drive to kill all the infidels (hey ruskie – that means you too…potatoes for brains.). If your wrong, its terminal. What idiots you theists be. stick to economics. You’re no better than the left: clinging to an ideology notwithstanding the reality around you. You still don’t get it. Chamberlain was wrong and so are you.

              Push sound money and free-market capitalism. That commie posting below needs to know that not your views on anything else!. You fly the Mises banner – stick to econ!!!!!

              sambor71 Don L • an hour ago
              Wow. What a insane little rant.

              Don L sambor71 • an hour ago
              Really, what good has this article attained. Worthless drivel where no agreement can ever be made. The namesake of the Institute admonished that Economics was not and ideology and that’s all these idiots now do – Libertarianism. Unfounded make believe crap – pure unknown gibberish – emotion and conjecture. No different than the left with their ideological drivel.

              Austrain Economics offers more than some idiot’s opinion. I write about economics and sway more to the knowledge than these jerks do. They lost focus, push personal aggrandizement. They forget the reason the Institute exists. They talk to each other and ignore the people who need to hear/learn.

              I’m a retired cabby and do more for rational economic thought than any post I’ve seen here. I get the “WIRE” …where has the economics, sans the attached opinion/ideology, gone. Think my review is stupid or insane fine. But it is about Austrian economics. This Article is about an opinion about an ideology for which there is obviously disagreemnt. Does it accomnplish anything to promote sound money, ending the FED, NO!

              Here’s an old review. If you think I missed or got points wrong. I’ll fix ’em. But if you deny Ausrtrian econ …you lose with absolute proof. This crap ideology from the Institute misses the purpose of it’s namesake’s hard life and work.

              This “WIRE” and the Institute are now more concerned with impressing each other than providing answers to people as to, for instance, why it is married women with kids, over 50% since 1985, have to work. How about explaining to the folk on the low rungs of the ladder how the FED screws ’em …bring them over to the light. No, these loons are more concerned about showing how brilliant they are speaking to the ideologues like say, you!

              A sample:

              The Big Short (2015): a review

              Director: Adam McKay
              Writers: Charles Randolph (screenplay), Adam McKay (screenplay)
              Stars: Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling

              A Review by Don L (Cabby #268)

              Dadadadadad

              My little pieces answers questions people need and want to know, The Instiitute has failed reaching anybody but it’s ideological buddies for years! Why are they here anymore? Hey Rockwell …serve the customer …not the cronies! (95% plus no nothing of free-market capitalism. You stopped caring!)

          • liz

            Hmmm, interesting. The Ayn Rand Institute is now promoting libertarian “open borders”, among other things. May be a connection there…

            • Don L

              AS I was lambasting the Institute folk, they kept calling me an objectivist. They had a choice: promote Austrian Econ or Libertarianism … guess what they chose? Failure and the destruction, through neglect and abandonment, of the namesakes great work. Sad.

            • That’s depressing news. But thanks for telling us, liz.

        • Jeanne

          This is the only place that I visit that has not been considering such viewpoints as Carlson and Watson and many others hold. None of those of whom I have read and listened to consider Islamists as anything other then a threat.

  • Don L

    Cucker Tarlson has his ass on forwards. That’s all I’ve got on him.

    To all the pacifist pansies, “I’m afraid … oooh” safe place seeking women (including the males among them – not all the women – not enough however)), it’s time you paid attention and learned how your current ill-informed stupidity and irrational timidity, which is not new, got millions killed around the world in WWII because nobody wanted to offend little Adolph.

    He acknowledged and laughed at the “Allies” because had anyone had the foresight and intestinal fortitude to stop him the moment he moved into the Ruhr Valley, against agreements, and started up his armaments industry – NO WAR!!! But the cowering females (again the guys included – certainly not all females) gave us the Chamberlains of peace; which guaranteed war.

    Get it Read it and shut the F up. I’m tired of listening to snotty cowards:

    Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals & Society”. Discover what cowardice and irrational pacifism gets you when up against the evil that men/gov’ts do.

    How do you stop a bully … bloody its nose. If more, kill it … find its parents and send them away.

    If your afraid of the knife, you’ll cut yourself for sure.

    • liz

      Yes, they need swift punishment. Good for the Israelis.
      Speaking of knives, can you believe they’re actually banning knives in London? What insanity. Its forbidden to address the real problem – Muslims – so just start banning things. Morons.

      • Don L

        Liz, these Brit leaders are off their rockers. It is unexplainable.

        • “It is unexplainable” – I would explain as follows:

          1. The current lot are really not very bright.

          2. The establishment has been heavily infiltrated by Muslim “advisers” who have convinced the wooden-headed May and others that Islam is a religion of peace. She actually does seem to believe it and rumour has it she has never read any of the Islamic texts or been exposed to arguments critical of Islam.

          • liz

            May, Merkel, etc, etc. – like peas in a pod. It’s bad enough that there are any morons THAT gullible – but do they have to be leading entire countries??!! (Leading them down the drain, that is.)

  • liz

    I’m assuming the retaliatory airstrike that was already made was the U.S.?

    • Do you mean the missile strike made last year against the Syrian airfield, liz?

      • Don L

        There was an airstrike on Syria a couple days ago by the Israelis, it is reported. I thought the same as Liz. Amazing how with all watching, they got it done. So, our stealth or theirs? The USSR (slip) and Syria didn’t know at first who or from where.

        • Jeanne

          Go Israel! Now…they make a war decision and stick to it. I guess they have had to. Everybody else kind of got waffly a few decades ago.